[palata]

> Many of the issues sound like issues coming from using improvised civilian hobbyist tech

I don't think it's improvised civilian hobbyist tech. They run autopilots that also fly professional drones and can fly planes.

I think it's mostly that it has to be super cheap, otherwise it doesn't bring value (because other weapons are more efficient if you have more money). If your one-way drone costs 10k dollars, maybe it's too expensive even though it can fly during the night.

And then there are fundamental limitations, like flying in bad weather.

> obviously the next stage is a FPV drone with some capabilities of "reusable" drone

But a reusable drone won't go inside a hangar (because at this point it probably won't come out). If your drone can go somewhere, drop something and come back, doesn't it mean that another class of weapons could do this job?

[bluGill]

$10,000 can be cheap for a one way drone. Bombs often cost for more than that. The real question is value, if hitting the target is worth more than the cost of what you hit it with then you have a good value. Taking out a $1000 drone with a $100,000 missile is a good value if that drone is headed for a $1,000,000 building, but if the drone is headed for a cow probably not worth it.

[palata]

Sure. But isn't that the point of the article? That the author is not sure if they bring as much value as advertised?

[LorenPechtel]

And the reusable drone has a serious battlefield limitation that it's extremely vulnerable while positioning to drop it's munition. Very good against something that can't defend itself (we have a lot of video of them dropping stuff into tanks that the crew bailed out of for some reason), but the cost mounts quickly if a soldier with a shotgun can engage it.

[spwa4]

Sadly I think that AI will make a very large difference here. And AI hardware that can control weapons is already hundreds of dollars and dropping fast, because a cell phone can do it.